Summary
This is the Committee's First Report since its establishment,
in January this year, to scrutinise the work of the Lord Chancellor's
Department and associated public bodies. It is the result of an
early decision to undertake a brief inquiry into the very significant
piece of legislation coming out of the Lord Chancellor's Department
which is the Courts Bill. Although the Bill follows the report
of the Auld Review of the criminal courts, and was prefigured
in the White Paper Justice for All, it was not itself published
in draft and as a result had been the subject of no direct pre-legislative
scrutiny. The Committee therefore considered that it would be
helpful to the House to produce a brief report highlighting the
main issues of concern.
The Courts Bill will implement those recommendations
contained in the Auld Review which the Government accepted in
Justice for All. The main purpose of the Bill is to bring
magistrates' courts into a unified court system with the county,
Crown and High Courts. Provision is also made for the collection
of fines, court security, judicial titles, periodic payment of
damages and a transferral to the Lord Chancellor responsibility
for appointing magistrates in the Duchy of Lancaster.
In this Report the Committee highlights the main
issues that Members of the House may wish to consider on second
reading and in Standing Committee, and makes a number of recommendations.
Those recommendations include:
- Addressing the issue of accessibility and court closures
by:
- redrafting the general duty in clause 1 of the Bill
to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has a duty to provide a system
which is accessible, as well as efficient and effective; and
-
requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult local courts
boards about decisions on places, dates and times of magistrates'
court sittings.
-
Considering further the precise role of the proposed
courts boards.
- Questioning the extent to which the proposal to make
justices' clerks civil servants may affect the effective performance
of their functions.
- Exploring how proposed powers for new fines officers
might impact on those on very low incomes.
- Considering the extent of the need for a police presence
for court security and the accountability of the proposed court
security officers.
- Accepting the amendment made in the House of Lords
requiring the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need to facilitate
access to justice when setting fees.
- Supporting the proposed power to impose costs on
third parties in cases where there has been serious misconduct,
but calling for a draft of the regulations defining the scope
of those powers to be made available when the House considers
that part of the Bill.
|
